feminism and black nationalism (was bourgeoisie feminism?)

[nancybrumback@xxxxxx]

First, i appreciate the posts supporting me and cheering
me on -- this is a new experience, different from any
other marxism list that i have ever been on.

>The term "bourgeois feminism" is perhaps an antiquated
>term for something with which we are all familiar...and
>it has nothing to do with poor women or workingclass
>women. To some extent, the term implies a view that
>asserts the primacy of the claim of sex identity over
>class, but I think this becomes increasingly abstract
>as we look at the real world.

gender and class, the old conundrum will never go away
until it is dealt with in a manner satisfactory to
women. It will not go away just by saying, oh you have
to wait until after the revolution. In our society,
where everyone is SO alienated, how can you expect
women to believe this promise unless they are already
marxist?

I can't remember the author's name we discussed recently
on this list, but the book was about a new definition
of class. There was the bourgeoisie, the middle class,
and the working class which included everyone who
wasn't in the first two categories. The argument was
developed in such a way that i began to think that he
was talking about the unequal division of power in
class society -- the bourgeoisie has lots of power, the
middle class has some, and the working class has none
(relatively speaking, and if you discount the power
of turning out into the streets, which if the
transfer of power to the disenfranchised is ever
to take place at all, is going to have to be
everybody, men, women, whites, blacks, gay, straight
etc, etc.)

Anyway, if we adopt this definition of class in terms
of relationship to power, and feminism as the campaign of
the powerless to gain power over their own lives, the whole
conundrum simply collapses. Because bourgeois women already
have power -- they are rich. They can get an
abortion any time they want, whether it is legal or
illegal. They can have all the education they want,
jobs that they want, etc. etc. because they are
rich AND connected to the rest of the bourgeoisie.
Same with middle class women but to a lesser extent.
Still, most of them are probably okay with it because
they are so much better off than the women of the working
class.

Only working class women have "nothing to lose but
their chains" in terms of power; they are the basis
of feminist power. They have common cause with the entire
working class -- they are people without power trying to
gain power for themselves. It is a pity that marxists keep putting
women into the same category as the bourgeoisie because of the
tiny, tiny proportion of women who are of the bourgeoisie. By
doing this, marxists are undercutting themselves as well as the
planet and all life on it.

<<By bourgeois feminism I mean the kind of academic anthropologist that JC
was quoting at length in order to represent women in indigenous societies
as being exploited by men in various ways in such a fashion as to suggest
that the penis rather than class society is responsible for woman's
oppression.>>

In considering problems such as this one re: the women's movement, i like
to refer back to the black nationalist movement. Would anyone on this
list argue that african-americans should *not* get together, on their own
with no whites present, to define their own problems and strategize their
own struggle? I do hope not, because african-americans are the one "race"
in america that was ripped away from their own culture and brought to
america where they were enslaved by whites who wanted to define them in
terms of how they could serve white culture. To attract black nationalists
to the marxist movement, marxists must, must, must let the blacks define
their own reality -- they must not try to define it for them! Because if
they do try to tell blacks (or any other persons of color for that matter)
who they are and what they're about, that in itself is violent and racist
act! Because the next step, historically, was to beat them into
submission.

Now, just make another paragraph, cross out "african-americans" and
substitute "women." The only difference is the part about slavery. But women 
were not ripped away from their own cultures and brought to america in iron 
chains. The chains were in their hearts and minds and had been there since the 
rise of patriarchy, with some respite at different times
-- the late middle ages, various movements at the time of the protestant 
revolution, and the 1st and 2nd wave of feminism, which we are still having as 
far as i'm concerned. But just as in the case of african-americans, for men 
(white or black) to tell women what to think and how
to act, to try to define women's own reality instead of letting women
define their reality for themselves, is in itself a violent and sexist act. 
Because the next step, historically and to some extent to this day, has been to 
beat women into submission.

i've heard the term "self-determination" applied to black nationalists
by marxists who do support their separatist cause. How long will it be
before you apply the same term to women?

with great love for the earth and all life on it,

nancy

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.